Page 58 - Kukanja Gabrijelčič, Mojca, and Maruška Seničar Željeznov, eds. 2018. Teaching Gifted and Talented Children in A New Educational Era. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 58
aterini D. Gari et al.
to detect depression through the drawings. Before that, Burns and Kauff-
man (1970) were interested in the qualitative analysis of children’s family ki-
netic drawings and created a coding system which includes five main di-
agnostic categories: Actions by and between persons in the project, Char-
acteristics of each person’s faces, Location, Distance and Barriers between
persons, Style and Symbols. Kaplan and Main (1986) also developed a sys-
tem for categorizing family drawings into the four types of attachment (se-
cure, avoidant, ambivalent, disruptive), reflecting the child’s representations
of the type of bond with the mother based on the Bowlby’s attachment the-
ory. This coding system describes specific design characteristics associated
with each of the bond types. Another rating scale, the Family Drawing Global
Rating Scale – FDGRS, was made by Fury, Carlson, and Sroufe (1997). Their
work was based on the Kaplan and Main classification system. The FDGRS is
a 7-point grading scale of the emotional tone, quality of family relationships
and attachment type to be depicted in the family drawings. FDGRS includes
two positive dimensions Vitality/Creativity and Pride for the Family/Happiness,
and six negative dimensions, Vulnerability, Emotional Distance/Isolation, Ten-
sion/Anger, Role-Reversal, Bizarreness/Disorganization and General Pathology
(Table 1).
Great interest among researchers appeared for the kinetic approach also to
school drawing because it seemed to provide a richer source of data than did
static drawings (Andrews & Janzen, 1988; Armstrong, 2004; Prout & Celmer,
1984). School and class drawings have been used to document gifted stu-
dents’ perceptions of school life as they provide nonverbal documentation
of gifted students’ perceptions of their current school experiences. They also
clearly indicate the changes the students would prefer in their schooling. In-
formation on the particular educational preferences of gifted students can
be applied, whether or not these students are served by special programs, to
ensure that their school experiences meet their unique educational needs.
Moreover, the students, who had been identified as gifted, demonstrated in
their pictures that they preferred to learn in differentiated settings through a
variety of instructional and sensory modalities. They also confirmed that they
were similar to their peers by demonstrating stereotypical age and gender
preferences in their pictures (Armstrong, 1995). The Kinetic School Drawing
(KSD) model employs the following measures from children class drawings:
‘In or out of school,’ ‘Engaged in an undesirable behaviour,’ ‘Engaged in an
academic behaviour,’ ‘Teacher height,’ ‘Child height,’ ‘Number of peers,’ ‘Dis-
tance between self and teacher,’ and ‘Distance between self and others (Prout
& Celmer, 1984; Prout & Phillips, 1974).
56
to detect depression through the drawings. Before that, Burns and Kauff-
man (1970) were interested in the qualitative analysis of children’s family ki-
netic drawings and created a coding system which includes five main di-
agnostic categories: Actions by and between persons in the project, Char-
acteristics of each person’s faces, Location, Distance and Barriers between
persons, Style and Symbols. Kaplan and Main (1986) also developed a sys-
tem for categorizing family drawings into the four types of attachment (se-
cure, avoidant, ambivalent, disruptive), reflecting the child’s representations
of the type of bond with the mother based on the Bowlby’s attachment the-
ory. This coding system describes specific design characteristics associated
with each of the bond types. Another rating scale, the Family Drawing Global
Rating Scale – FDGRS, was made by Fury, Carlson, and Sroufe (1997). Their
work was based on the Kaplan and Main classification system. The FDGRS is
a 7-point grading scale of the emotional tone, quality of family relationships
and attachment type to be depicted in the family drawings. FDGRS includes
two positive dimensions Vitality/Creativity and Pride for the Family/Happiness,
and six negative dimensions, Vulnerability, Emotional Distance/Isolation, Ten-
sion/Anger, Role-Reversal, Bizarreness/Disorganization and General Pathology
(Table 1).
Great interest among researchers appeared for the kinetic approach also to
school drawing because it seemed to provide a richer source of data than did
static drawings (Andrews & Janzen, 1988; Armstrong, 2004; Prout & Celmer,
1984). School and class drawings have been used to document gifted stu-
dents’ perceptions of school life as they provide nonverbal documentation
of gifted students’ perceptions of their current school experiences. They also
clearly indicate the changes the students would prefer in their schooling. In-
formation on the particular educational preferences of gifted students can
be applied, whether or not these students are served by special programs, to
ensure that their school experiences meet their unique educational needs.
Moreover, the students, who had been identified as gifted, demonstrated in
their pictures that they preferred to learn in differentiated settings through a
variety of instructional and sensory modalities. They also confirmed that they
were similar to their peers by demonstrating stereotypical age and gender
preferences in their pictures (Armstrong, 1995). The Kinetic School Drawing
(KSD) model employs the following measures from children class drawings:
‘In or out of school,’ ‘Engaged in an undesirable behaviour,’ ‘Engaged in an
academic behaviour,’ ‘Teacher height,’ ‘Child height,’ ‘Number of peers,’ ‘Dis-
tance between self and teacher,’ and ‘Distance between self and others (Prout
& Celmer, 1984; Prout & Phillips, 1974).
56
